[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

[AmpedRealtor]

I'll just leave this here for all you Philosiraptors and Thinkosauroses out there.

Great point. Why aren't we all up in arms over the fact that we don't really have a usable 85 kWh pack when Tesla lists 85 kWh battery as a specification? Shouldn't owners be suing when they can't achieve the 265 mile EPA range that is advertised, or the 300 mile range at 55 MPH? Our iPads are supposed to last X hours on battery when browsing web pages, has anyone actually tested that and returned their iPads when they don't perform as advertised?

I have an easy solution for Tesla. Just add the word "effective" in front of "HP". By the way, Nissan advertises 107 HP motor power for its Leaf and independent dyno runs have confirmed that it achieves about 105 HP. Clearly something about how Tesla is rating the P85D is different, so they should just use the word "effective".

 

[wk057]

Great point. Why aren't we all up in arms over the fact that we don't really have a usable 85 kWh pack when Tesla lists 85 kWh battery as a specification? Shouldn't owners be suing when they can't achieve the 265 mile EPA range that is advertised, or the 300 mile range at 55 MPH? Our iPads are supposed to last X hours on battery when browsing web pages, has anyone actually tested that and returned their iPads when they don't perform as advertised?

I have an easy solution for Tesla. Just add the word "effective" in front of "HP". By the way, Nissan advertises 107 HP motor power for its Leaf and independent dyno runs have confirmed that it achieves about 105 HP. Clearly something about how Tesla is rating the P85D is different, so they should just use the word "effective".

Actually, it seems that the battery pack is in fact 85 kWh, or really close to it. If you keep your power usage down below about 1/4C (~21kW) you'll actually be able to use the majority of that power minus the well known anti-brick type safety buffer. Once you get above 1/4C discharges the battery releases some of that power internally in the form of heat due to internal resistance. It happens at all discharge rates, really, but starts to become more apparent above about 1/4C.

Since I highly doubt anyone has limited themselves to about ~28 HP worth of power for an entire 100% charge... the jury is still out on how large the anti-brick and safety buffers actually are.

In any case, this is totally different than horsepower numbers. Even if you count the reserve buffer against Tesla with the 85kWh battery you're still looking at only a few % discrepancy, and one that is well known because the range estimates are known and the energy cost of a rated mile is known. So, nothing hiding here with regard to the pack capacity.

In the case of horsepower we're looking at something like a 150 HP discrepancy... more like 20%. If my 85kWh pack was actually 68kWh I would raise hell about that too. But if my 691 HP vehicle was actually showing ~660 HP.... honestly, that's within a reasonable margin for error IMO and this thread probably wouldn't exist (or at least my voice within it). But 20%? Come on.

 

[Johan]

P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

Actually, it seems that the battery pack is in fact 85 kWh, or really close to it. If you keep your power usage down below about 1/4C (~21kW) you'll actually be able to use the majority of that power minus the well known anti-brick type safety buffer. Once you get above 1/4C discharges the battery releases some of that power internally in the form of heat due to internal resistance. It happens at all discharge rates, really, but starts to become more apparent above about 1/4C.

Since I highly doubt anyone has limited themselves to about ~28 HP worth of power for an entire 100% charge... the jury is still out on how large the anti-brick and safety buffers actually are.

In any case, this is totally different than horsepower numbers. Even if you count the reserve buffer against Tesla with the 85kWh battery you're still looking at only a few % discrepancy, and one that is well known because the range estimates are known and the energy cost of a rated mile is known. So, nothing hiding here with regard to the pack capacity.

In the case of horsepower we're looking at something like a 150 HP discrepancy... more like 20%. If my 85kWh pack was actually 68kWh I would raise hell about that too. But if my 691 HP vehicle was actually showing ~660 HP.... honestly, that's within a reasonable margin for error IMO and this thread probably wouldn't exist (or at least my voice within it). But 20%? Come on.

My point was that battery capacity is a surrogate variable while real world range is what you're really interested in.

Horsepowers too is a surrogate variable, what matters is real world performance.

This is why the horsepower discussion is really a surrogate discussion for something that is very much related, but not the same: performance.

Now I don't own a P85D and I admit I might have felt differently if I did, but to me the important question is whether or not the car will make, or not make, the advertised 0-60/0-100 times. And don't get me wrong - I fully understand that the jury's still out on that too.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I guess he was thinking of the 0-60 mph time and forgot to account for the extra 3.5 km when talking about 0-100 km/h.

Of course he was. So used to say the 0-60numbers that he repeated it for 0-100kph as well. Matches perfectly to the 0-60mph times of the P85D and not matching any other numbers ever presented for any model then or now.

If Elon is able to make a mistake on that (and I remember people are taking Tesla to task over a 0.3 second difference because of rollout, and Elon makes a 0.2 second mistake here), why it is so surprising that he makes a mistake on the 691hp? Why the different standards?

I do wonder what your perspectives are on this. Which one do you guys think happened?

1) 691 hp was completely made up, and Tesla had no plans to accomplish that and never will
2) 691 hp was a system power number they hope to accomplish with updates, but ran into problems with fuse/contactors, which Ludicrous addressed
3) 691 hp was a "motor power" number from adding the front and rear "motor power" numbers, but not a system power Tesla was going to accomplish
4) 691 hp was a "motor power" number from adding the front and rear "motor power" numbers, Tesla hoped to accomplish as a system power number with updates, but ran into problems with fuse/contactors, which Ludicrous addressed

My perspective is somewhere between #3 and #4. I don't think Tesla planned to accomplish 691 system power (I feel it really was just "motor power"), but they did plan for something higher than the ~550hp right now and stumbled upon Ludicrous in coming up with a solution.

So my perspective is Elon would know all about that and talk about things in that perspective. Alternatively, if he was a "hands off" CEO (he certainly doesn't appear to be) he would just repeat what Tesla PR says and wouldn't "correct" any 691hp number given Tesla PR never did that either.

I don't want to speculate too much given P90D L will be out in next couple of days (we'll know if it makes 750+hp as sorka projects or closer to the 691hp previously), but we'll see if it's right.

 

[thegruf]

^this imho. Great summary.

The problem now is that the new fuses are $100's each + fitting labor so there is no way Tesla can offer these as free retrofit, hence the chargeable Ludicrous update.

 

[LetsGoFast]

Top Gear managed this a few years ago in Dubai or similar F1 vs Veyron.. And the F1 killed the veyron from a standstill when driven by the stig. Took awhile before the HP-advantage of the Veyron came into play.

That's apparently a non-launch control equipped Veyron, because the launch control does 2.4 0-60 and would absolutely smoke the F1 start to finish.

 

[sorka]

If Elon is able to make a mistake on that (and I remember people are taking Tesla to task over a 0.3 second difference because of rollout, and Elon makes a 0.2 second mistake here), why it is so surprising that he makes a mistake on the 691hp? Why the different standards?

I do wonder what your perspectives are on this. Which one do you guys think happened?

1) 691 hp was completely made up, and Tesla had no plans to accomplish that and never will
2) 691 hp was a system power number they hope to accomplish with updates, but ran into problems with fuse/contactors, which Ludicrous addressed
3) 691 hp was a "motor power" number from adding the front and rear "motor power" numbers, but not a system power Tesla was going to accomplish
4) 691 hp was a "motor power" number from adding the front and rear "motor power" numbers, Tesla hoped to accomplish as a system power number with updates, but ran into problems with fuse/contactors, which Ludicrous addressed

My perspective is somewhere between #3 and #4. I don't think Tesla planned to accomplish 691 system power (I feel it really was just "motor power"), but they did plan for something higher than the ~550hp right now and stumbled upon Ludicrous in coming up with a solution.

So my perspective is Elon would know all about that and talk about things in that perspective. Alternatively, if he was a "hands off" CEO (he certainly doesn't appear to be) he would just repeat what Tesla PR says and wouldn't "correct" any 691hp number given Tesla PR never did that either.

I don't want to speculate too much given P90D L will be out in next couple of days (we'll know if it makes 750+hp as sorka projects or closer to the 691hp previously), but we'll see if it's right.

As far as 0-60, the issue is standards in different parts of the world. Nobody is having any issue with a declared performance spec in the US because we all mostly understand that the standard is to list 0-60 with the 1 ft rollout. We also understand that the vast majority of manufacturers have made 0-60 claims which are *very* difficult to achieve unless conditions are ideal. The 0-60 thing is far more of an issue in countries that don't use the 1 ft rollout. Plus there are additional claims that even with that the 0-60 times are still not there. Multiple folks in Sweden and Denmark are claiming 4 seconds. If the performance is equal to the P85Ds here, a 3.1 second 0-60 with the 1 ft rollout is 3.1 seconds vs 3.7 seconds to 100 kmh without the 1 ft rollout. Big difference but it's the same acceleration run.

Many of us believe now that Tesla just got a little bit ahead of themselves and believe they intended to sell us a car that makes a true 691 hp but that they ran into issues and figured out they could fix them after shipping with a software update. We all know the story about how that went and what it finally turned into.

 

[darthy001]

That's apparently a non-launch control equipped Veyron, because the launch control does 2.4 0-60 and would absolutely smoke the F1 start to finish.

Yes, there is obvisously no launch control used in that video. Just as many of the initial P85D vs Lambo-videos etc didnt use LC either. No launch control for the F1 either

The point it is that the 3.2second claim from Mclaren doesnt look far fetched when seeing that video. The F1 is driven by a pro and and the Veyron is indeed driven by a comedian, but the comedian has an automatic transmission do perform the shifting for him at least..

I also read the test from autocar UK on the F1 just know and they obviously tested this themselves as they listed a ******** of performance numbers for the F1 of different speeds in different gears etc. http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/mclaren/f1-1992-1998/performance

Edit: also remember that the post you are quoting was a response to a post from stopcrazypp saying it wasnt possible to arrange a dragrace with a F1 and that the drivetrain would be destroyed. The video clearly states that it can be done given the right resources and that the car most likely survived

Edit nr2: autocar actually lists the 3.2seconds for the 0-62mph and not 0-60 on the spec-page of that review... So could be even better than what has been discussed here until now..

- - - Updated - - -

Many of us believe now that Tesla just got a little bit ahead of themselves and believe they intended to sell us a car that makes a true 691 hp but that they ran into issues and figured out they could fix them after shipping with a software update. We all know the story about how that went and what it finally turned into.

@stopcrazypp what sorka said

 

[sorka]

If I could pick any car on the planet to own it would be the F1. Yes there are more capable cars out there now, but I've been madly in love with the F1 since '93. I used have posters all over my office of just it.

 

[Andyw2100]

Many of us believe now that Tesla just got a little bit ahead of themselves and believe they intended to sell us a car that makes a true 691 hp but that they ran into issues and figured out they could fix them after shipping with a software update. We all know the story about how that went and what it finally turned into.

Which is why at least some of us think Tesla should make it right by now giving us the upgrade that will turn the cars into what they should have been in the first place.

I'm really surprised by how many people, including P85D owners, are willing to acknowledge that we did not get what we paid for, but are willing to let that slide. And while the percentage of P85D owners willing to give Tesla a pass on this may be fairly high among the TMC P85D owners, I'd be willing to bet that when word of this makes it to the mainstream media, as it eventually will, the non-TMC member P85D owners will not be as willing, as a group, to just shrug and say, "That's OK. We know you're doing your best. Changing the world is hard." I think Tesla would do well to get out in front of this, rather than waiting for that group to start making noise.

I also have another analogy for those here who don't think it's appropriate for us to ask Tesla to make this right to think about.

You are in charge of taking a few people from your company, and several clients, out to dinner. You select a very expensive restaurant, and order four bottles of expensive wine for the table. You happen to be away from the table for a couple of minutes when the wine is served, so the bottles are not actually presented to you, for your approval. You're not a great wine connoisseur anyway, so perhaps even if they had been shown to you, you wouldn't have remembered the exact name and vintage of the french wine that you ordered. Everyone is enjoying their meal, and their wine, but part way through the meal one of your staff, who happens to know a great deal about wine, tells you quietly that he thinks the wine brought to the table is not the wine that you ordered, but actually a somewhat significantly less expensive wine. All other aspects of the meal were fantastic! Everyone had a great time, and couldn't stop talking about how great the food was. Some even said how much they enjoyed the wine. Later the bill is presented, and you see that it includes charges for the more expensive wine that you ordered. You inquire, quietly, so as not to let any of the clients know anything is wrong, as to which wine was actually served. The waiter goes away, comes back a couple of minutes later, and says he is very sorry, but you are correct, and the wine served was actually the less expensive wine. However, since the bill has already been prepared, there is really nothing he can do: you'll have to pay the higher amount, for the more expensive wine you did not actually receive, even though there is a simple and obvious solution to the problem readily available.

Is this acceptable? Would the people suggesting we give Tesla a pass also give the restaurant a pass? If not, why do you think we should let Tesla give us less than we paid for?

 

[stopcrazypp]

The point it is that the 3.2second claim from Mclaren doesnt look far fetched when seeing that video. The F1 is driven by a pro and and the Veyron is indeed driven by a comedian, but the comedian has an automatic transmission do perform the shifting for him at least...

I don't know how you make that claim. That video has no numbers associated with it and I don't believe we know what the 0-60 of a Veyron is without launch control when driven by a non-pro. I'm having difficulty finding even when driven by a pro. It seems the Veyron is typically tested with launch control.

Many of us believe now that Tesla just got a little bit ahead of themselves and believe they intended to sell us a car that makes a true 691 hp but that they ran into issues and figured out they could fix them after shipping with a software update. We all know the story about how that went and what it finally turned into.

@stopcrazypp what sorka said

So is that #2 or #4? The major difference between the two is that for #2, Tesla would owe you something because they promised 691hp system power directly. By your responses, I'm guessing #2?

#4 is Tesla doesn't really owe you anything because they promised 691hp "motor power" (but not system power), but you may have thought they meant the same thing as system power. That becomes a lawsuit for misleading advertising (although what Tesla claims is not factually wrong).

 

[wk057]

Which is why at least some of us think Tesla should make it right by now giving us the upgrade that will turn the cars into what they should have been in the first place.

I'm really surprised by how many people, including P85D owners, are willing to acknowledge that we did not get what we paid for, but are willing to let that slide. And while the percentage of P85D owners willing to give Tesla a pass on this may be fairly high among the TMC P85D owners, I'd be willing to bet that when word of this makes it to the mainstream media, as it eventually will, the non-TMC member P85D owners will not be as willing, as a group, to just shrug and say, "That's OK. We know you're doing your best. Changing the world is hard." I think Tesla would do well to get out in front of this, rather than waiting for that group to start making noise.

I also have another analogy for those here who don't think it's appropriate for us to ask Tesla to make this right to think about.

You are in charge of taking a few people from your company, and several clients, out to dinner. You select a very expensive restaurant, and order four bottles of expensive wine for the table. You happen to be away from the table for a couple of minutes when the wine is served, so the bottles are not actually presented to you, for your approval. You're not a great wine connoisseur anyway, so perhaps even if they had been shown to you, you wouldn't have remembered the exact name and vintage of the french wine that you ordered. Everyone is enjoying their meal, and their wine, but part way through the meal one of your staff, who happens to know a great deal about wine, tells you quietly that he thinks the wine brought to the table is not the wine that you ordered, but actually a somewhat significantly less expensive wine. All other aspects of the meal were fantastic! Everyone had a great time, and couldn't stop talking about how great the food was. Some even said how much they enjoyed the wine. Later the bill is presented, and you see that it includes charges for the more expensive wine that you ordered. You inquire, quietly, so as not to let any of the clients know anything is wrong, as to which wine was actually served. The waiter goes away, comes back a couple of minutes later, and says he is very sorry, but you are correct, and the wine served was actually the less expensive wine. However, since the bill has already been prepared, there is really nothing he can do: you'll have to pay the higher amount, for the more expensive wine you did not actually receive, even though there is a simple and obvious solution to the problem readily available.

Is this acceptable? Would the people suggesting we give Tesla a pass also give the restaurant a pass? If not, why do you think we should let Tesla give us less than we paid for?

Seems I've over used my rep-giving ability, but probably one of the best analogies for this that I've seen. +1

 

[SDRick]

I also have another analogy for those here who don't think it's appropriate for us to ask Tesla to make this right to think about.

You are in charge of taking a few people from your company, and several clients, out to dinner. You select a very expensive restaurant, and order four bottles of expensive wine for the table. You happen to be away from the table for a couple of minutes when the wine is served, so the bottles are not actually presented to you, for your approval. You're not a great wine connoisseur anyway, so perhaps even if they had been shown to you, you wouldn't have remembered the exact name and vintage of the french wine that you ordered. Everyone is enjoying their meal, and their wine, but part way through the meal one of your staff, who happens to know a great deal about wine, tells you quietly that he thinks the wine brought to the table is not the wine that you ordered, but actually a somewhat significantly less expensive wine. All other aspects of the meal were fantastic! Everyone had a great time, and couldn't stop talking about how great the food was. Some even said how much they enjoyed the wine. Later the bill is presented, and you see that it includes charges for the more expensive wine that you ordered. You inquire, quietly, so as not to let any of the clients know anything is wrong, as to which wine was actually served. The waiter goes away, comes back a couple of minutes later, and says he is very sorry, but you are correct, and the wine served was actually the less expensive wine. However, since the bill has already been prepared, there is really nothing he can do: you'll have to pay the higher amount, for the more expensive wine you did not actually receive, even though there is a simple and obvious solution to the problem readily available.

Is this acceptable? Would the people suggesting we give Tesla a pass also give the restaurant a pass? If not, why do you think we should let Tesla give us less than we paid for?

In my mind this analogy does not hold up.


The Tesla buyers ordered off the menu and picked a car with motors rated at 691 hp motor power. That's what it said on the menu and that's what they got.


Your wine analogy would be more accurate if you pointed to a bottle on the menu but received something else. Like you order a Napa Cabernet from a top-tier vintner and realize later that you were expecting the "Estate" version but unfortunately the menu did not say "Estate" so you also got what you ordered.


Perhaps in the example above the wine menu should have stated "not estate grown" but you usually do not see that. Tesla could have been more transparent as well although nothing I have seen in print is inaccurate.

 

[Andyw2100]

In my mind this analogy does not hold up.


The Tesla buyers ordered off the menu and picked a car with motors rated at 691 hp motor power. That's what it said on the menu and that's what they got.

I had written "I'm really surprised by how many people, including P85D owners, are willing to acknowledge that we did not get what we paid for, but are willing to let that slide."

The analogy is for the people here who do agree that we did not get what we were promised, but still do not believe it should be made right. It is not applicable to people like you, who believe we got what we paid for.

 

[sorka]

That becomes a lawsuit for misleading advertising (although what Tesla claims is not factually wrong).

You have no idea what Tesla was claiming. Other's interpretations of what motor power meant is just that. Tesla has made no statement clarifying this.

- - - Updated - - -

The Tesla buyers ordered off the menu and picked a car with motors rated at 691 hp motor power. That's what it said on the menu and that's what they got.

I seriously doubt Tesla put "motor power" to turn the "hp" they also said to mean something other than horsepower. They still said horsepower and we consumers took that to mean what every other manufacturer means when they advertise horsepower. I'm certain Tesla didn't add this as an intentional deception. Why advertise horsepower on all the other variants which they all dyno what is advertised and do something entirely different for the PD. If it was intentional then it was intentionally deceptive. I'm not willing to believe Tesla did that on purpose.

If they did, it would be *far* worse for them than simply being wrong.

The only people who've said they meant what the motor could theoretically achieve if it had enough battery power have nothing to do with Tesla. Tesla has made no such claims and I don't think they ever will.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You have no idea what Tesla was claiming. Other's interpretations of what motor power meant is just that. Tesla has made no statement clarifying this.

Tesla didn't, but given the EU conformance certificate posted elsewhere it seems pretty clear. It is a measure of peak power the motors can accomplish independently. The combined number of 691hp is simply the sum of those two numbers (simple math shows this). It says nothing about system power (we already know the system power is not 691 hp under any measure). The differences between S60/S70 vs S85 and 60D/70D vs 85D further illustrate the point.

I don't want to argue too much over this. For the purposes of my question, it suffices to say that you see #2 then, that Tesla meant system power when they advertised 691hp. You do not agree with the whole "motor power" thing being a different case.

I seriously doubt Tesla put "motor power" to turn the "hp" they also said to mean something other than horsepower. They still said horsepower and we consumers took that to mean what every other manufacturer means when they advertise horsepower. I'm certain Tesla didn't add this as an intentional deception. Why advertise horsepower on all the other variants which they all dyno what is advertised and do something entirely different for the PD. If it was intentional then it was intentionally deceptive. I'm not willing to believe Tesla did that on purpose.

I don't really follow this narrative. The narrative is that Tesla when they launched the P85D removed all their system horsepower numbers and started advertising "motor power". It was not a special thing they did only for the P85D. Then this thread happened. Tesla then removed the 691hp "motor power" number for the P85D in response. After a while, they removed all motor power numbers and put back system power numbers (except for the P85D). Now they have both numbers (except for the P85D).

Now, there can be a lot of speculation about why they leave out the system power for the P85D (Ludicrous throws another monkey wrench into that), but my guess is that they know any number they post will not be received well by existing P85D owners (whereas they don't have the same worry for the other models, even though they were also affected).

 

[sorka]

I don't really follow this narrative. The narrative is that Tesla when they launched the P85D removed all their system horsepower numbers and started advertising "motor power".

The phrase "691 hp" appeared in their specs. Are we supposed to believe that adding "motor power" to the end of that is supposed to not mean "system horsepower"? Prove it. Show me where they defined the term "motor power" to not mean system hp like every other manufacturer means. If they intentionally meant to do this and just thought we'd all be deceived by it because it modified what they meant by total hp i.e. not that actual hp produced by the vehicle being sold, then prove it. What could potential hp mean to any us? Why would we care if it could make some number higher than what they actually sold? Seriously, why would they mean something different for the P85D than for the 85D?

I don't believe they intended to mislead us with vague terminology. If they did, it would be *way* worse than if they were simply wrong.

 

[SDRick]

Question.
If you were searching through a electric motor catalog looking for identical replacement motors for the P85D what would be motor power specification be for each motor and would it total 691 hp?

 

[brianman]

People aren't upset over the performance (which is pretty much as promised, outside of perhaps the whole European issue with rollout), they are upset over the number.

You've followed the thread. You know that's not an accurate statement.

 

[Torben_E]

I do appreciate that the P85D is being being marketed differently in different regions/countries.

When I in Denmark ordered the car 24th of Januar both each motor power and the combines Power was advertised.

Together with the official launch of the P85D in october there was no reason for me to believe that the P85D could not deliver 691 hk (in europe 700 hk).

Performance 0-100 km/h is also well defined being 3.4 s.

In April when the 70D was launched and the OTA SW upgrade was announced for the P85D providing a 0,1 s improvement. The Danish webpage was also being updated :

Cooming back to the origin of our letters to Tesla. We just want what we ordered and paid for.


The other cars (forget orther manufacturors) the P85 and P85D deliver on what was advertised. Why not the Premium versoin of Model S ?

Cheers

Torben_E